So who is bummed about the lockout? II
View Single Post
10-30-2012, 11:12 AM
Join Date: May 2010
I am at the point where I am going to throw my hands up in defeat regarding the people that think the NHLs original offer was so damned draconian that Bettman personally pissed in every single player's Wheaties.
The NBA put forth a MUCH HARSHER first proposal...
Negotiations on a new CBA began in early 2011. The league claimed that it was losing $300 million a year (22 out of 30 teams were losing money last season) and proposed to reduce 40% of players' salary (about $800 million) and institute a hard salary cap (at $45 million per team) as opposed to a soft cap (at $58 million) currently in use. The union disputed those figures and steadfastly opposed those changes. Players union director Billy Hunter said that he was advising players to prepare for a lockout. In May 2011, the NBPA filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), accusing the league of negotiating in bad faith by failing to provide critical financial data to the union and repeatedly threatening to lock out players. The NBA quickly rejected the complaint, saying that the league complies fully with federal labor laws. The union also considered the option of decertification, which allows players to file an antitrust lawsuit against the NBA.
The NHL's first proposal was a cut of 14% of the players share of HRR. I don't care what sort of math the PA or diptards like Walsh use, but when you decrease the percentage share from 57% to 43%... THAT IS ONLY A 14% REDUCTION OF SHARE!!! Not 28%... Not 30%... Yeah, there would have been a greater percentage reduction of players salaries as figured against what they previously made, but the over all share simply dropped fourteen goddamned percentage points...
The NBA's initial proposal was to slash the players share of BRR from 60% to 40%. Doing the quick math there? 20% reduction of the players share...
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by bozak911